In the August 29 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "Fixing Regulations".
The article covers the recent Obama directive that his various agencies weed out outdated regulations and revamp others to promote job creation. On the surface, this is an admirable directive, but as the US Chamber of Commerce says, "It will not have a material impact on the real regulatory burdens facing American business today".
The Office of Management and Budget says regulation reform over the next year or so will save $4 billion over five years. Shortly thereafter, another $6 billion will be saved. This totals $10 billion. A $10 billion savings in comparison with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit is almost insignificant. We must always remember the difference between a billion dollars and a trillion dollars is a factor of 1000.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
USAID Will Now Pay FOREIGN Researchers for "Global Science"
In the July 11 issue of C&E News, there is an article entitled, "Promoting Global Science". It says that a new partnership between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Agency for International Development will allow scientists from developing countries to apply and compete for support of research projects involving NSF funded US colleagues. NSF will fund the Us component of these projects, while USAID will foot the bill for international researchers.
It means that US taxpayers will be footing the bill for "promotion of global science" by paying foreign researchers, through USAID. This is a ridiculous project in these special times deficit government financing. We have previously used us taxpayer funds to promote research projects for US university scientists, which in itself is ridiculous. This new operation exacerbates the ridiculousness of this situation.
It means that US taxpayers will be footing the bill for "promotion of global science" by paying foreign researchers, through USAID. This is a ridiculous project in these special times deficit government financing. We have previously used us taxpayer funds to promote research projects for US university scientists, which in itself is ridiculous. This new operation exacerbates the ridiculousness of this situation.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Represented Neugebauer's Newsletter
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I read your newsletter.
We all agree that Obama's job proposal is the same old, same old. I believe we are whistling in the dark when we expect the Super Committee to come up with $1.5 trillion spending cuts. I hope also that Obama's efforts to develop economic class warfare in the country will fail. We need a unified approach to big problems. Taxing the rich will not do the job and would only make the unemployment situation worse, as those with capital find other countries more amenable to investment.
Since the above efforts are bound not to be effective, we must be wary of subsequent techniques used by Marxists. These are to prohibit movement of capital to other countries, and to confiscate the assets of specified organizations and individuals. Both these procedures were used by Egypt about 1958. I'm not sure how you can protect the country from these developments if Obama wants to put them into effect. He controls the Justice Department and the Military and it seems that Congress's hands are tied. Is this where the arming of the militia comes into effect?
You note that the EPA continues to push sustainable development to the economic disadvantage of the country. You also seem to like the idea that we should continue pursuing innovative ideas that allow us to do more with fewer resources. May I inject a word of caution? That type of philosophy is generally "defeatist". There's no question that we should be against waste in any form, whether it is in energy, manpower, or whatever. We should always work efficiently with maximum use of our assets. At the present time we are not doing that, with respect to our energy resources. We have ample reserves of oil, which are not being developed. That is no reason why we should be on a particularly conservative program of reducing oil consumption. The reverse is true. We should be developing more oil for increased use.
With respect to the Palestinian request to the UN for state recognition, it is a ridiculous proposal that has been encouraged by our Muslim favored President. A state/country must have physical boundaries. That is, it must have control of land area, which the Palestinian population does not now have. They have been offered this possibility with the conciliation that they will not use their newfound benefits in conducting war with their neighbors. They have temporarily refused this offer, which I believe is continually available to them. There is a greater likelihood of a peaceful Middle East, if they were to accept the offer. Unfortunately, Obama has encouraged them to do otherwise.
Randy,
I read your newsletter.
We all agree that Obama's job proposal is the same old, same old. I believe we are whistling in the dark when we expect the Super Committee to come up with $1.5 trillion spending cuts. I hope also that Obama's efforts to develop economic class warfare in the country will fail. We need a unified approach to big problems. Taxing the rich will not do the job and would only make the unemployment situation worse, as those with capital find other countries more amenable to investment.
Since the above efforts are bound not to be effective, we must be wary of subsequent techniques used by Marxists. These are to prohibit movement of capital to other countries, and to confiscate the assets of specified organizations and individuals. Both these procedures were used by Egypt about 1958. I'm not sure how you can protect the country from these developments if Obama wants to put them into effect. He controls the Justice Department and the Military and it seems that Congress's hands are tied. Is this where the arming of the militia comes into effect?
You note that the EPA continues to push sustainable development to the economic disadvantage of the country. You also seem to like the idea that we should continue pursuing innovative ideas that allow us to do more with fewer resources. May I inject a word of caution? That type of philosophy is generally "defeatist". There's no question that we should be against waste in any form, whether it is in energy, manpower, or whatever. We should always work efficiently with maximum use of our assets. At the present time we are not doing that, with respect to our energy resources. We have ample reserves of oil, which are not being developed. That is no reason why we should be on a particularly conservative program of reducing oil consumption. The reverse is true. We should be developing more oil for increased use.
With respect to the Palestinian request to the UN for state recognition, it is a ridiculous proposal that has been encouraged by our Muslim favored President. A state/country must have physical boundaries. That is, it must have control of land area, which the Palestinian population does not now have. They have been offered this possibility with the conciliation that they will not use their newfound benefits in conducting war with their neighbors. They have temporarily refused this offer, which I believe is continually available to them. There is a greater likelihood of a peaceful Middle East, if they were to accept the offer. Unfortunately, Obama has encouraged them to do otherwise.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Reduce Production of Ammonium Sulfate and Control Its Applications
The August 15 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "No Progress On Nitrate Runoffs". Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate fertilizers washes into the groundwater and rivers that make up the Mississippi River Basin. Eventually, the pollution makes its way into the Gulf of Mexico where it feeds a zone, an area of low oxygen water where many organisms cannot survive. Although the article does not say so, I suspect that the increased concentration of nitrate involving the zone also contributes to a decrease in fish and shellfish production in the the Gulf Coast area.
Efforts to reduce the nitrate pollution have been in effect since 1980, but recent shows that little progress has been made. The culprit is ammonium nitrate, which is a good fertilizer, but also has the disadvantage of the indicated pollution. In addition, ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel fuel is an excellent explosive for car bombs to damage buildings and kill people in the hands of terrorists. There should be controls on ammonium nitrate production, if not downright commercial elimination. It would be relatively simple matter, because it is not necessary to use ammonium nitrate as a nitrogen supplying fertilizer. There are reasonable substitutes, such as anhydrous ammonia, and ammonium sulfate, if a solid fertilizer is necessary. The nitrate contamination would be replaced by sulfate, which is not really a pollutant. Calcium sulfate is indigenously present in all of the Southwest.
The EPA is always looking for something to do and has come up with many ideas of restriction or promotion, which have no solid basis for reality. Here is something which involves environmental contamination and on which the EPA could easily place restrictions with justification.
Efforts to reduce the nitrate pollution have been in effect since 1980, but recent shows that little progress has been made. The culprit is ammonium nitrate, which is a good fertilizer, but also has the disadvantage of the indicated pollution. In addition, ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel fuel is an excellent explosive for car bombs to damage buildings and kill people in the hands of terrorists. There should be controls on ammonium nitrate production, if not downright commercial elimination. It would be relatively simple matter, because it is not necessary to use ammonium nitrate as a nitrogen supplying fertilizer. There are reasonable substitutes, such as anhydrous ammonia, and ammonium sulfate, if a solid fertilizer is necessary. The nitrate contamination would be replaced by sulfate, which is not really a pollutant. Calcium sulfate is indigenously present in all of the Southwest.
The EPA is always looking for something to do and has come up with many ideas of restriction or promotion, which have no solid basis for reality. Here is something which involves environmental contamination and on which the EPA could easily place restrictions with justification.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The House Must Challenge EPA Regulations in Federal Court
EIN News says, "Fight Over EPA Regulations Heats Up U.S. House Republicans plan to advance two bills Tuesday that would delay and soften a pair of Environmental Protection Agency air toxics rules. (thehill.com)".
Sounds good but it's the same old problem. The House can pass the bills, but they will stall in the Senate, and never make the president's desk. He would veto them anyhow.
The House needs a different approach. Passing bills is futile, and we can't wait until November 2012.
The more likely successful approach would be to continually challenge EPA rules in the Federal Courts. Hopefully, a federal court will find an applicable previous congressional law unconstitutional.
Sounds good but it's the same old problem. The House can pass the bills, but they will stall in the Senate, and never make the president's desk. He would veto them anyhow.
The House needs a different approach. Passing bills is futile, and we can't wait until November 2012.
The more likely successful approach would be to continually challenge EPA rules in the Federal Courts. Hopefully, a federal court will find an applicable previous congressional law unconstitutional.
National Science Foundation Grant to the American Chemical Society Is Bribery
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a taxpayer supported government agency, is in the business of giving away taxpayer money. They have recently given $1 million to the American Chemical Society (ACS) to "communicate to the public chemistry's contribution to society" (C&E News August 22, 2011).
I am a chemist and an emeritus member of the American Chemical Society. I obviously believe in the benefits of chemistry to society. It has been my lifelong career. Certainly, there is a need to educate the public on what chemistry is doing, but this method is a conflict of interest.
The problem is that when the federal government gives the American Chemical Society $1 million, the gift is connected with some form of reciprocity. The American Chemical Society is now obligated to support the National Science Foundation in any kind of harebrained scheme it wants to develop. This includes global warming, automotive fuel from switch grass, and other impractical or public fear imposing ideas.
C&E News is a magazine which is intended to disseminate information among its subscribers, who are usually chemists and chemical engineers. It is an example of what we call a house organ. There are house organs for every significant organization, which would include the glass industry, the steel industry, the automotive industry, etc. These magazines also generally have the objective of promoting the industry to the public through transference of articles to other more widely dispersed media. The basic cost has been borne by the various companies, who were members of the organization. If C&E News confined its financial revenue sources to corporate members of the ACS, as it has done in the past, there would be no conflict of interest.
As it now stands, the taxpayer gives money to the NSF. The NSF gives money to the ACS. The ACS then educates the same taxpayer who gave money to the NSF.
Randy, if this sounds like a bad system to you, the taxpayers would really appreciate your efforts in having various federal government agencies get out of the grant business. It is a bribery system which leads to deception of the American public. Congress could make a specific law prohibiting grants from federal agencies or it could cut the budgets of these agencies to the bone, which would force them to cut grants as they tried to first protect their own jobs.
Randy,
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a taxpayer supported government agency, is in the business of giving away taxpayer money. They have recently given $1 million to the American Chemical Society (ACS) to "communicate to the public chemistry's contribution to society" (C&E News August 22, 2011).
I am a chemist and an emeritus member of the American Chemical Society. I obviously believe in the benefits of chemistry to society. It has been my lifelong career. Certainly, there is a need to educate the public on what chemistry is doing, but this method is a conflict of interest.
The problem is that when the federal government gives the American Chemical Society $1 million, the gift is connected with some form of reciprocity. The American Chemical Society is now obligated to support the National Science Foundation in any kind of harebrained scheme it wants to develop. This includes global warming, automotive fuel from switch grass, and other impractical or public fear imposing ideas.
C&E News is a magazine which is intended to disseminate information among its subscribers, who are usually chemists and chemical engineers. It is an example of what we call a house organ. There are house organs for every significant organization, which would include the glass industry, the steel industry, the automotive industry, etc. These magazines also generally have the objective of promoting the industry to the public through transference of articles to other more widely dispersed media. The basic cost has been borne by the various companies, who were members of the organization. If C&E News confined its financial revenue sources to corporate members of the ACS, as it has done in the past, there would be no conflict of interest.
As it now stands, the taxpayer gives money to the NSF. The NSF gives money to the ACS. The ACS then educates the same taxpayer who gave money to the NSF.
Randy, if this sounds like a bad system to you, the taxpayers would really appreciate your efforts in having various federal government agencies get out of the grant business. It is a bribery system which leads to deception of the American public. Congress could make a specific law prohibiting grants from federal agencies or it could cut the budgets of these agencies to the bone, which would force them to cut grants as they tried to first protect their own jobs.
Monday, September 12, 2011
EPA Damage by Innuendo from Radon
Chemical and Engineering News has a page entitled, "Government and Policy Insights" (August 22, 2011 edition). On that page, David Hanson presents his views on the subject "Living With Radon". In that article, he says that we have not made any progress in the past 25 years on reducing the amount of cancer caused by radon exposure or in reducing the number of houses that need radon levels reduced. He also says "The handling of radon as a public health risk by EPA over the past 25 years has been long on talk but short on results".
Hanson quotes EPA as having said that radon killed 20,000 people per year 25 years ago and is now killing 21,000 people per year. First, let's put that in perspective. In 2003, 556,902 people died of cancer in the USA ( http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37480.php). The number attributed to radon is 3.8%. We also need to ask how the EPA knows there were 20,000 deaths attributed to radon 25 years ago. Is there something special about a radon death that distinguishes it from any other cancer death? We also need to ask why we should be particularly concerned about radon which is said to contribute less than 4% to the cancer problem.
I've just finished reading a book on Radioactivity by Marjorie Caroline Malley. She says that history shows high levels of radioactivity can cause cancer, but low levels of radioactivity can be beneficial to health. We also know about the development of nuclear medicine, which involves using radioactive substances to control cancer in specifically targeted organs. A case in point is a preclinical study presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine 56th Annual Meeting suggesting that alpha-therapy, in association with fast-clearing peptides, can be effective in treating prostate cancer (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704765). By the way, radon is a radioactive gas, which emits alpha particles; the same particles that are referred to in the reference article.
The above would lead us to believe that radon may not be the bugaboo, which EPA and Hanson have suggested. We don't need more controls based on ignorance, but I do propose that there could be some additional research to determine the reality of radon's dangers.
We now need to revert to an ancillary topic which is more important than radon itself. That is, environmental regulations.
In spite of the fact that EPA has not to my knowledge regulated radon concentration in homes, their incomplete work and subsequent statements have developed a fear, in the mind of the public, concerning another mysterious quantity. It has also led to the development of new businesses in radon sampling, laboratory testing, and construction controls. Obviously the development of new businesses is an advantage, but there is a caveat. The development of any new business, which is based upon ignorance, lack of practicality or with the possibility of no benefit to the buyer, is effectively a scam.
15 years ago I sold my home in Rydal, Pennsylvania. At that time, the EPA had already spread its fear propaganda concerning radon, which was then bought by "believers" and likely others who saw an opportunity for profit (scam). The real estate agent, which was part of a monopolistic group of real estate agencies, insisted that I had to have a radon test, which I did. The air sampling laboratory found "high" levels of radon in my dining room and lower levels of radon in the basement. It should be noted that radon is a heavier than air gas and would normally settle to the lowest level, which would be the basement. In spite of this inconsistency and lack of any federal regulations on radon concentration, I was forced to install radon remediation in the home before I could sell it. This obviously increased the cost of the property without increasing its value. By the way, we lived in the house 20 years. I am 90 years old and my wife is 88. Neither of us nor any of our children have cancer
In my case, the EPA did damage to my attempts to sell my home, even without having established a "regulation". There is little doubt that this has occurred many times with other private individuals and massively on a business scale.
It has been previously suggested to me rather than just complain about obvious wrongdoing, I should also make a constructive suggestion. I believe I have done that in most cases. In this case, I suggest Congress significantly reduce funding of the EPA. The reason for this is to reduce the size of the agency so that they will spend their time on more productive problems, rather than develop partial information leading to detriment in our society.
Hanson quotes EPA as having said that radon killed 20,000 people per year 25 years ago and is now killing 21,000 people per year. First, let's put that in perspective. In 2003, 556,902 people died of cancer in the USA ( http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37480.php). The number attributed to radon is 3.8%. We also need to ask how the EPA knows there were 20,000 deaths attributed to radon 25 years ago. Is there something special about a radon death that distinguishes it from any other cancer death? We also need to ask why we should be particularly concerned about radon which is said to contribute less than 4% to the cancer problem.
I've just finished reading a book on Radioactivity by Marjorie Caroline Malley. She says that history shows high levels of radioactivity can cause cancer, but low levels of radioactivity can be beneficial to health. We also know about the development of nuclear medicine, which involves using radioactive substances to control cancer in specifically targeted organs. A case in point is a preclinical study presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine 56th Annual Meeting suggesting that alpha-therapy, in association with fast-clearing peptides, can be effective in treating prostate cancer (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704765). By the way, radon is a radioactive gas, which emits alpha particles; the same particles that are referred to in the reference article.
The above would lead us to believe that radon may not be the bugaboo, which EPA and Hanson have suggested. We don't need more controls based on ignorance, but I do propose that there could be some additional research to determine the reality of radon's dangers.
We now need to revert to an ancillary topic which is more important than radon itself. That is, environmental regulations.
In spite of the fact that EPA has not to my knowledge regulated radon concentration in homes, their incomplete work and subsequent statements have developed a fear, in the mind of the public, concerning another mysterious quantity. It has also led to the development of new businesses in radon sampling, laboratory testing, and construction controls. Obviously the development of new businesses is an advantage, but there is a caveat. The development of any new business, which is based upon ignorance, lack of practicality or with the possibility of no benefit to the buyer, is effectively a scam.
15 years ago I sold my home in Rydal, Pennsylvania. At that time, the EPA had already spread its fear propaganda concerning radon, which was then bought by "believers" and likely others who saw an opportunity for profit (scam). The real estate agent, which was part of a monopolistic group of real estate agencies, insisted that I had to have a radon test, which I did. The air sampling laboratory found "high" levels of radon in my dining room and lower levels of radon in the basement. It should be noted that radon is a heavier than air gas and would normally settle to the lowest level, which would be the basement. In spite of this inconsistency and lack of any federal regulations on radon concentration, I was forced to install radon remediation in the home before I could sell it. This obviously increased the cost of the property without increasing its value. By the way, we lived in the house 20 years. I am 90 years old and my wife is 88. Neither of us nor any of our children have cancer
In my case, the EPA did damage to my attempts to sell my home, even without having established a "regulation". There is little doubt that this has occurred many times with other private individuals and massively on a business scale.
It has been previously suggested to me rather than just complain about obvious wrongdoing, I should also make a constructive suggestion. I believe I have done that in most cases. In this case, I suggest Congress significantly reduce funding of the EPA. The reason for this is to reduce the size of the agency so that they will spend their time on more productive problems, rather than develop partial information leading to detriment in our society.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Reduced Government Regulations Will Create Jobs
Open e-mail to Sen. John Cornyn (R TX).
I read your newsletter on EPA overregulation. Right on!
Unfortunately, I also saw on TV this morning your interview with a reporter.
The reporter asked you what business is most interested in to create jobs. You said, "Reduced Government spending". Wrong answer!
The correct answr is in two parts. A favorable attitude toward business and reduced regulations. Government spending is of only ancillary interest to business, providing it does not increase business taxes
I read your newsletter on EPA overregulation. Right on!
Unfortunately, I also saw on TV this morning your interview with a reporter.
The reporter asked you what business is most interested in to create jobs. You said, "Reduced Government spending". Wrong answer!
The correct answr is in two parts. A favorable attitude toward business and reduced regulations. Government spending is of only ancillary interest to business, providing it does not increase business taxes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
